How do we find the ''best'' explanation?

Whenever we set out to learn something new, or we run across information that seems new to us, what makes us trust the information as being truthful? When it comes to matters that are testable through the scientific process, how can we be sure that the explanation being offered, is the best one?

When we feel that someone is telling us the truth, is it because of confirmation biases that lead us to believing those truths?

The best explanation should be a factual and reasonable one, but how do we trust facts and reason? Is it because the facts are accepted by the majority? How can we evaluate and trust reason to ensure that it serves us as the ''best'' explanation?

What are your ideas on this?

Click to expand...

Money. If you want to figure out if everything is true then you need to be able to afford to buy the equipment needed to test it all.

For instance if you think a food company is doing ingredients fraud then you need to pay the money to have their food tested and to be sure the ingredients are true.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Wegs said,
The best explanation should be a factual and reasonable one, but how do we trust facts and reason? Is it because the facts are accepted by the majority? How can we evaluate and trust reason to ensure that it serves us as the ''best'' explanation?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Wegs said,
The best explanation should be a factual and reasonable one, but how do we trust facts and reason? Is it because the facts are accepted by the majority? How can we evaluate and trust reason to ensure that it serves us as the ''best'' explanation?

In the early 20th century it was shaped by David Hilbert's program to prove the consistency of foundational theories. Results of Kurt Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen, and others provided partial resolution to the program, and clarified the issues involved in proving consistency.

Click to expand...

Work in set theory showed that almost all ordinary mathematics can be formalized in terms of sets, although there are some theorems that cannot be proven in common axiom systems for set theory.

Click to expand...

Contemporary work in the foundations of mathematics often focuses on establishing which parts of mathematics can be formalized in particular formal systems (as in reverse mathematics) rather than trying to find theories in which all of mathematics can be developed

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.

Click to expand...

Such as the Fibonacci sequence which is found throughout the Universe and is based on the ratio of "Phi"

Therefore Phi is an axiomatic (self-evident) mathematical aspect to the Universe's fundamental functions

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning

Our symbolic representation of mathematical functions is less important than the adherence to consistency in using those symbols. IOW, any mathematical equation has to be consistent to self and relatively consistent to its environment.

Physical observation always yields a mathematical equation as to values and functions.
Ask any theoretical scientist. They all experience the sensation of "discovery" (not "creation") of pre-existing mathematical functions based on the inherent values and conditions of the set under observation.

I agree completely. Verification is fundamental to Science.
However that does not prohibit the use of mathematics in theoretical or predictive science.

A beautiful example is the Higgs boson, which had never been seen but was theoretically predicted with the use of mathematics. The verification of the maths was confirmed when the experiment actually produced the boson at the Cern collider for a brief instant in time.

The mathematics were proven correct and the particle achieved expression in our reality.
I believe this was a profoundly important mathematically anticipated discovery.
It proved several things at several levels. The Universe understands mathematical language.

As one scientist said; "If you ask the universe something in a language she understands (mathematics), and you ask it nicely (good mathematics), she will provide the answer".

Contemporary work in the foundations of mathematics often focuses on establishing which parts of mathematics can be formalized in particular formal systems (as in reverse mathematics) rather than trying to find theories in which all of mathematics can be developed.

Click to expand...

I believe Max Tegmark is still convinced that mathematics can be combined into a single universal set to form a TOE.

I agree completely. Verification is fundamental to Science.
However that does not prohibit the use of mathematics in theoretical or predictive science.

A beautiful example is the Higgs boson, which had never been seen but was theoretically predicted with the use of mathematics. The verification of the maths was confirmed when the experiment actually produced the boson at the Cern collider for a brief instant in time.

The mathematics were proven correct and the particle achieved expression in our reality.
I believe this was a profoundly important mathematically anticipated discovery.
It proved several things at several levels. The Universe understands mathematical language.

As one scientist said; "If you ask the universe something in a language she understands (mathematics), and you ask it nicely (good mathematics), she will provide the answer".

Well, Higgs et al received the Nobel prize for their efforts, a pretty strong endorsement by the body Science.
That's why I said it was a landmark discovery of a previously hidden but suspected to exist particle.

I'm not so sure. Bohm proposed a "Hidden Variable" theory, which might account for the apparent mathematical exceptions.

Bohm's hidden variable theory[edit]
Main article: de Broglie–Bohm theory
Assuming the validity of Bell's theorem, any deterministic hidden-variable theory that is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local, maintaining the existence of instantaneous or faster-than-light relations (correlations) between physically separated entities.

Click to expand...

The currently best-known hidden-variable theory, the "causal" interpretation of the physicist and philosopher David Bohm, originally published in 1952, is a non-local hidden variable theory

Well, Higgs et al received the Nobel prize for their efforts, a pretty strong endorsement by the body Science.
That's why I said it was a landmark discovery of a previously hidden but suspected to exist particle.

By the definition you use every organization is political. But Science is founded primarily on the acquisition of knowledge and evidence, not grand social oratory.

I would not call public recognition and a monetary reward for 20 years of hard study a political event, other than as incentive for other scientists to stretch mind and pioneer new areas of inquiry and other interested organizations to offer scholarships or otherwise fund the sciences.

By the definition you use every organization is political. But Science is founded primarily on the acquisition of knowledge and evidence, not grand social oratory.

Click to expand...

Evidence that suites the mainstream narrative . Not reality .

I would not call public recognition and a monetary reward for 20 years of hard study a political event, other than as incentive for other scientists to stretch mind and pioneer new areas of inquiry and other interested organizations to offer scholarships or otherwise fund the sciences.

Click to expand...

Really ?

So where is the funding for Halton Arp and Hannes Alfven research ? You know to " stretch mind " .